Wouldn’t it be a big carnival sideshow joke if, since it all started with “The Big Bang”, that it all ended with “The Big Con”? Phineas Taylor Barnum was attributed as saying (however unsupported) “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Whether he said this or not, he was nonetheless quite interested in man’s susceptibility to the hoax, and his legacy of enjoying the profits from this continues to this day.
Do you ever feel like sometimes modern science is selling a sideshow attraction? In a sideshow attraction, the proprietor must capture the unsuspecting spectator’s interest enough to the point of them being susceptible to coercion and ultimately to the point of profit.
I realize this analogy is probably unfair to most of those who are working hard to extend the knowledge in their field of study, but how many have taken a realistic step back and looked at this from a more practical perspective? What I am reading these days with respect to how science is trying so hard to explain away the “Big Bang” as not being the creation point of the universe astounds me. Much of this seems beyond what you would expect from a 1950’s science fiction movie festival.
So, consider this … (all of the following was derived online from respectable science websites)
Dark Times Ahead
As the Universe expands, the density of radiation and ordinary and dark matter declines more quickly than the density of dark energy (see equation of state) and, eventually, dark energy dominates. Specifically, when the scale of the universe doubles, the density of matter is reduced by a factor of 8, but the density of dark energy is nearly unchanged (it is exactly constant if the dark energy is a cosmological constant).
Current observations indicate that the dark energy density is already greater than the mass-energy density of radiation and matter (including dark matter). In models where dark energy is a cosmological constant, the universe will expand exponentially with time from now on, coming closer and closer to a de Sitter spacetime. In this scenario the time it takes for the linear size scale of the universe to expand to double its size is approximately 11.4 billion years. Eventually all galaxies beyond our own local supercluster will redshift so far that it will become hard to detect them, and the distant universe will turn dark.
In other models, the density of dark energy changes with time. In quintessence models it decreases, but more slowly than the energy density in ordinary matter and radiation. In phantom energy models it increases with time, leading to a big rip.
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
A hypothetical form of dark energy that is even more potent than the cosmological constant at increasing the expansion of the universe (i.e., it satisfies the equation of state with ). If it exists, it could cause the expansion of the universe to accelerate so quickly that a scenario known as the Big Rip would occur. If this is true, the expansion of the universe reaches an infinite degree in finite time, causing expansion to accelerate without bounds. This acceleration will pass the speed of light (since it involves expansion of the universe itself, not particles moving within it), causing the observable universe to shrink, as light and information emitted from distant stars cannot “catchup” with the expansion. As the observable universe contracts, objects will be unable to interact with each other via fundamental forces, and eventually the expansion will prevent any action of forces between any particles, even within atoms, “ripping apart” the universe. This characterizes the Big Rip as a possible end to the universe.
The Big Rip
A cosmological hypothesis first published in 2003, about the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the matter of the universe, from stars and galaxies to atoms and subatomic particles, is progressively torn apart by the expansion of the universe at a certain time in the future. According to the hypothesis, the scale factor of the universe and with it all distances in the universe become infinite at a finite time in the future.
The Big Crunch
In physical cosmology, the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity or causing a reformation of the universe starting with another big bang.
The Big Bounce
The Big Bounce is a theoretical scientific model of the formation of the known universe. It is implied by the cyclic model or oscillatory universe interpretation of the Big Bang where the first cosmological event was the result of the collapse of a previous universe.
The Big Chill (OK… so I made this moniker up… but why not? Everything else is BIG, right!)
The heat death of the universe is a suggested ultimate fate of the universe, in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that consume energy (including computation and life). Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other process may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy). The hypothesis of heat death stems from the ideas of William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, who in the 1850s took the theory of heat as mechanical energy loss in nature (as embodied in the first two laws of thermodynamics) and extrapolated it to larger processes on a universal scale.
The Big Con
Does this all seem like some big con to you? I’ve laughed at some of the old Ed Wood movies and had fun at it, but to me… Ed had nothing on this. This has all the makings of one big well orchestrated con job. To me, the far more practical and believable alternate explanation for our universe is that God really does exist and is our Creator.
“See the egress. 25 cents.” Right, P.T. ?